-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 111357)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 825 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

PBE Shield Stickers and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!

File 151198467859.jpg - (49.54KB , 928x523 , gettyimages-822840404_-_h_2017.jpg )
111357 No. 111357 ID: 7326e1
Opchan is global warming real or fake?

also check it out, al gore is chinese now
Expand all images
>> No. 111358 ID: b85820
  Yes, climate change (aka global warming) is real and largely driven by human activity (pollution).
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Undeniable climate change facts https://youtu.be/SQ7bzR99iJ4
>> No. 111359 ID: 278cbe
File 151199154190.jpg - (124.08KB , 1080x1080 , 14927875822150.jpg )
Yes and no. The global warming is not there because combined human influence on climate is less than eruption of a major volcano. On the other hand, it is there, because climate is a dynamic system in constant motion, and it changes constantly, making some places warmer and some others hotter.

People still have trouble accurately predicting the weather for more than several days, and they can predict major weather event for a week or two beforehand, with fair reliability.

A century ago a lot of people believed that sunspots are responsible for climate change, not to say, for major disasters, wars and droughts. Well, they were proven wrong, to a larger degree because you can't tax sunspots.

>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Cause it pays well to agree on that. You can promote carbon tax, "alternative energy", all sorts of "green" bullshit. And therefore extract money from economies, budgets, citizens, attract investment, fame and influence in politics, and all that without actually taking responsibility for any consequences. Under the pressure of these money drains, real projects that should fix climate issues and provide more people with more comfortable living space, are forgotten and abandoned (if ever considered possible).

>Undeniable climate change facts
Lol nope.
>> No. 111360 ID: 278cbe
File 151199326484.jpg - (263.30KB , 1339x1297 , UNEP-7.jpg )
The real application of climate change should be active, if not aggressive, in the area of conquering the nature and exploiting it's available resources. Instead of passively trying to stabilise the situation with "common" knowledge, "neutralize" human presence and footprint on global scale, we need to learn to live with it. We need to understand, that it is our responsibility to watch over yourself in the first place, and not our "planet", which is totally indifferent to whatever we feel ourselves.

Since the consensus on "climate change" that was made possible after end of Cold War (and dissolution of most sensible alternative opinion on global situation), everybody agreed to follow "passive" strategy to prevent situation from changing, and nobody acknowledges that it is actually impossible. Any given action especially performed in the area of reducing "footprint", leads up directly to the opposite effect - because this is how economy works.

But nobody cares as long as money flow and idea works. By the time we really understand how wrong we were about many of the things, this situation will already be too late to fix with passive methods and we may as well have to invest into global warming instead of battling it. Because of rebound effects, because of obsolete policies, corruption and capital accumulation, the market is becoming unable to adjust to any changes in situation, or control itself, and in effect, will become completely useless machine running on it's own into random direction.
>> No. 111361 ID: 09c7e0
File 151199428033.jpg - (63.02KB , 1200x1482 , IXQ2gic.jpg )
<----- al gore
>> No. 111363 ID: 278cbe
  Now I'm not going to pretend I'm professional or that I know more then competent people. After all, we might as well live in the best of all possible worlds. Maybe other options beside current "global warming" projects will actually turn out even worse that that, fuelled by human arrogance, stupidity or lack of knowledge.

But when I hear this guy making a slight mistake
slight mistake
[b]S_L_I_G_H_T M_I_S_T_A_K_E

of saying "last few hundred years" instead of "last few decades" at 1:50. My blood is suddenly simmering with indescribable rage. I want to slam his face into a nearest hard surface. Not to say about the rest of the demonstration.
>> No. 111365 ID: e07820
It's a well known fact that Global Warming is real. The "experts" saying otherwise are paid shills.
>> No. 111377 ID: fb3bdd
Have you tried actually reading some reputable sources (i.e. actual scientists not internet conspiracy theory blogs) instead of asking an imageboard full of cranks, schizos and drooling tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists?
>> No. 111378 ID: 3e843b
File 151213065674.jpg - (860.20KB , 3300x2550 , TIME-magazine-global-cooling-April-1977.jpg )
I believe climate change is real, maybe not global warming exactly though, and I think its entirely possible its man made but don't know for certain.

Either way, man made or natural, the whole of humanity should be doing more to prepare for it and to not exacerbate it. Even if its naturally occurring I'm sure pumping tons of crap into the atmosphere and depleting the ozone aren't helping matters.

I'm also sure even if its natural we shouldn't be sitting on our asses like some damn dirty pot smoking hippies who think anything natural is good for you. Even 100 percent organic all natural dead oceans and desert former bread baskets are going to fuck the human race just as bad as if they are the result of everyone driving cars or the chinks building libertarian wet dream factories.

Pic somewhat related, what exit will Frank take? And why can't we beat the Soviets? Is it true the 21st century will be the Soviet century?
>> No. 111380 ID: cce514
File 151218624048.jpg - (125.88KB , 900x900 , photo.jpg )
yeah dude, a retarded magazine cover based on the work of one kooky attention whore scientist that some jews used to try to sell the sophisticated version of people magazine on a slow news week 4 decades ago is effective refutation of the consensus views of an overwhelming majority of contemporary scientists.
that makes perfect sense
>> No. 111382 ID: 3e843b
File 151221322419.jpg - (80.66KB , 500x631 , 8005b2649c3e11f9282910c2abf57205.jpg )
I didn't say it was refuting or disproving anything, hence why it was somewhat related. What it does is illustrate that maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't accept everything automatically as truth and have a little healthy skepticism. If you believed everything you'd be stocking up on winter coats and snowmobiles for the coming winter apocalypse to happen any day now.

Also illustrates how the Soviets can never be beaten which is in no way something that would prove to be as dead as global cooling in the dawn of 21st century.
>> No. 111384 ID: 751d6a
Someone should Google '' Ice Ace Temperature Changes''. Someone should also Google ''The Greening Affect''.

That's right, your fucking Subaru is literally spreading fertilizer all over the place and does jack shit to the weather...
>> No. 111385 ID: 09c7e0
>one shouldn't accept everything automatically as truth and have a little healthy skepticism
ok, but next time some hollywood slut says that guns should be banned you should consider that uneducated individual loudmouthed retard's opinion to be the intellectual and moral equal of a 2/3 majority of american founding fathers and just flip a coin as to if you continue to support civil rights or not. because you don't know for sure that she isn't smarter than everyone else so just give her a fair chance.
>> No. 111389 ID: 9315da
real, probably
man made? probably

erryone panic OMG , lol no, Gore and friends were predicting we'd all be dead in 2015.

not using oil is gonna be a bitch, though, whole world is dependent on fossil fuels and just as important - plastics.
>> No. 111732 ID: 41441c
  Egypt is threatening war with Ethiopia because the latter is building a dam in the Nile headwaters for drought protection and energy production.
>> No. 111733 ID: 41441c
A second background video the guy did to add context.
>> No. 111746 ID: 1dec8f
Most underrated post in this thread.
>> No. 111747 ID: 7fecba
For those who claim high CO2 is beneficial, tie a plastic bag around your head and enjoy.
"Regarding my friend from California, if he thinks [carbon dioxide] doesn't cause any health problems, I invite him to put a plastic bag over his head, tie it tightly around his neck and see what happens next," Grayson said during a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on the Energy Department's clean energy budget.

Grayson was responding to comments made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who called climate change "a theory" that the Obama administration is using to justify spending and policy decisions that are putting thousands of people out of work.

"I don't accept the fact that CO2 in any way causes human health problems," Rohrabacher said. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/put-a-plastic-bag-over-your-head-grayson-tells-climate-change-skeptic/article/2591074
Carbon Dioxide And Global Warming - How Do We Know? https://youtu.be/qADD1Y886rI
>> No. 111750 ID: 278cbe
File 151810058986.jpg - (157.33KB , 1024x955 , irony-tshirt-logo-hr.jpg )
>For those who claim high CO2 is beneficial, tie a plastic bag around your head and enjoy.


Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
LCLo (lowest published)
90,000 ppm (human, 5 min)[3]
US health exposure limits (NIOSH):
PEL (Permissible)
TWA 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3)[2]
REL (Recommended)
TWA 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) ST 30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3)[2]
IDLH (Immediate danger)
40,000 ppm[2]


Major constituents of dry air, by volume[7]
NameFormulain ppmv(B)in %
Carbon dioxideCO2400
>> No. 111751 ID: 278cbe
>but muh 97%

Surprisingly it doesn't mean that they are wrong either. Science is not a Democracy, and the idea of individual opinion or popular consensus isn't really applicable to it. The major issue we are having is not about climate change itself, but about methodology in this area.
>> No. 111752 ID: 985c2f
The "debate" is over. It's been over for a decade now and the only people saying otherwise are those getting paid by coal/oil companies and christian groups who want the apocalypse. The actual data is now consistently following the worst-case predictive models.

>> No. 111753 ID: 278cbe
File 151811241850.jpg - (53.59KB , 600x600 , aKgBN41_700b.jpg )
>The "debate" is over.
>The actual data is now consistently following the worst-case predictive models.
>> No. 111754 ID: f19f5c
If you support the U.S. financially,
by paying taxes, for example,
you are voting for global warming
directly, with your wallet.
>> No. 111755 ID: 6ed282

>no guys! global warming is fake jew lies! keep buying Russian oil to fund imperialism!
>> No. 111992 ID: 9315da
>.Opchan is global warming real or fake?

probably yes, real. even if not, no reason to not work towards more efficient engines, power, etc.

>also check it out, al gore is chinese now

bad face lift?
>> No. 111995 ID: 322a66
File 152156162358.jpg - (15.43KB , 543x212 , 22552656_1411113405673154_1195153415854148202_n.jpg )
Google Bookchin.
>Unfazed, Bookchin went on in his next book to wrestle with an even larger problem. Crisis in Our Cities, published in 1965 (also under the Lewis Herber pseudonym), was mostly a study of urban ills. But in the closing chapter, he explained that “man’s increased burning of coal and oil is annually adding 600 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air. […] This blanket of carbon dioxide tends to raise the earth’s atmosphere by intercepting heat waves going from the earth into outer space.” Now, Bookchin wasn’t a climate scientist—his information source was a brief article in a scientific journal. But the consequences were clear: rising temperatures that would disrupt the climate: “Meteorologists believe that the immediate effect of increased heat leads to violent air circulation and increasingly destructive storms.” Bookchin took a daring leap to suggest that “theoretically, after several centuries of fossil-fuel combustion, the increased heat of the atmosphere could even melt the polar ice caps of the earth and lead to the inundation of the continents with sea water.”
>> No. 111997 ID: 09c7e0
I guess that must be it. I wonder if thats why he dropped out of the public sphere, he got bad plastic surgery and was too sissy to show his face in public anymore. Anyway a million lols at chinese Al Gore. Putins facelift turned him chinky too, but I figured that was a calculated move to make him look more like his population because Putin is a Karellian fennoswede from the far NE corner of the empire and looks out of place amongst the half-mongols of northwestern asia.
>> No. 112027 ID: 8f40fa
It is real and not 100% a bad thing.

The earth has, in the past, been MUCH hotter with MUCH higher CO2 levels. Like high enough CO2 levels that photorespiration isn't a thing (this is the kind of environment photosynthesis evolved in. Thus the fact that rubisco is also an oxygenase wasn't an issue and it wasn't until CO2 level dropped that C4 photosynthesis came into being...which that pathway has a really cool evolution that is beyond the bounds of this thread).

Right now, due to climate change, trees are growing faster and laying down stronger wood then they were pre-industrial revolution. They are also growing in greater densities overall and many species are expanding their ranges northward (not as quickly as you would think. The northward expansion is limited by the change in the length of days and some other factors).

Something people tend not to look at, as they assume atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing due to the current rhetoric, is how painfully low the CO2 levels were just before the industrial revolution and the fact that they were still falling at the time. C3 plants (all trees and most other herbaceous species) had locked so much CO2 in the ground that they were basically starving. Nearly 35-40% of all PS gains were lost to photorespiration as the CO2 concentration was simply not high enough and it was getting worse.

Thanks to climate change we can grow industrialized crops and literally feed the world. Lets be honest here. No one in the world starves because there isn't enough food. They starve because someone somewhere decided that they should.
If we reversed the change and dropped CO2 back to pre-industrial levels A LOT of people would die. We simply wouldn't be able to grow crops at the same level. It would create a situation where people are starving because there really isn't enough food.

The real issues no one seems to want to address is how do we slow the rate of the change so ecosystems can adapt with less disruption and how do we leverage the increase in temperature and CO2 to our advantage?
>> No. 112028 ID: 8f40fa
Forgot to add that photorespiration losses nowadays are 15-30% depending on the source you pull your info from.

If you want to try an at home experiment to see just how big of an issue photorespiration can be then:

Take 2 groups of plants (must be C3 plants, avoid monocots for this experiment), grow both indoors with a similar amount of light (confirm with light meter) and water.
1 group is the control and is kept in a separate room. The further away the better.
For the experimental group keep it close to a CO2 generator (like a an oil lamp that is always kept lit). The more CO2 generated the more dramatic the difference will be.

6 months later and I'm willing to bet that the experimental plants will be bigger by multiple orders of magnitude (baring disease). Now since you aren't in a labratory you, realistically, only dropped photorespiration by 1-5% but still had a dramatic effect. This is why professional greenhouses have CO2 generators. If your really think about it nearly all plant life on earth is being stunted by low CO2.
>> No. 112029 ID: 8f40fa
One last thing. I re-read what I wrote and I think I may have made it sound like C3 PS is the original pathway. It isn't...ish. I don't want to lecture everyone on PS evolution but just know that C3 is technically a carbon-concentration pathway and that there are much simpler pathways utilized by early plants and still utilized by cyanobacteria.
>> No. 112032 ID: 0e1e77
  The benefit to plants of increasing CO2 is limited by nitrogen, the food becomes less nutritious, and is outweighed by the destructive effects of climate change, such as drought, increasing storms, ocean acidification, etc. So the idea of the wonderful benefits of increasing fossil fuel pollution is ridiculous corporate propaganda.

If you isolate a leaf in a laboratory and you increase the level of CO2, photosynthesis will increase, but the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems. For example, nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.
Plants get some benefits early on from higher CO2, but that benefit starts to saturate after the gas reaches a certain level. The more CO2 you have, the less and less benefit you get. And while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects. There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit or heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process. Climate change's negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life.
Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. When you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious. Food crops lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains also lose protein.
Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
By Annie Sneed on January 23, 2018 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye | National Geographic https://youtu.be/EtW2rrLHs08
>> No. 112033 ID: 94171b
Not trying to be a dick here but I think they are cherry picking a little.

While most people know that bean plants have a relationship with soil bacteria to fix nitrogen so do a lot of other plants. Alders, most betulaceae, most fabaceae, most of ulmaceae, etc. For them nitrogen really isn't a limiting factor since the bacteria that infects their roots (it isn't true symbiosis but that is another thread all together). For, trees at least, the ones that don't typically don't grow on nutrient poor sites until a nitrogen fixing pioneer species alters the soil chemistry. That isn't a hard fast rule (for instance I know table mountain pine and tulip poplar will grow, happy as clams, on pure sand and neither of them nitrogen fix).

Now they are talking mostly about food crops but none of the issues that they present aren't currently being tackled by laboratories making next generation GM crops. Also I'll be honest I don't know much about the food crop world; I'm going to school for trees.

My take away here is that it isn't all doom and gloom. More CO2 can be leveraged in our favor. Higher temps can be leveraged in our favor.
People will have to move. Lives will be destroyed. People will starve while others get fat. But at the end of the day it will rain somewhere and there will be life. We are advanced enough that we can manipulate the end result and we should.
>> No. 112055 ID: 278cbe
Was looking around for some openly published works of modern sci-fi, and stumbled upon new post in Charles Stross blog. Written by some other guy, apparently a professional in "modern ecology" and author of some books. Well..



Right now I'm reviewing the article and some more article connected to that one. While I preserve my usual calm composure like any normal human does, I can not ignore that some muscles deep inside me twitch in a mix of disgust and amusement. Ants fucking with each other in an ant hill, that's what I see. There words in here that I do not recognize, like "urban forestry crowd" and "enviros" which to me seem to be some sort of cartel things (which I never interacted with and hope I'm never going to), and most likely they are the cause of these contractions.

I imagine, these people are doing business. They probably think they are going to organize some sort of business that will solve their (supposedly) environmental problems for them. They, apparently, think it is the bureaucracy that is keeping them from fixing this planet in some observable amount of time. Solutions and aesthetics. Positive and happy future. People are talking about soil and how it could be made to absorb their precious carbon as if there's nothing and no one is living on that soil. Talking about solar panels as if they've been spawning out of thin air recently.

Solar? Solar what? What the actual fuck is that, I ask myself. How you are going to do your "environmentalism" when every odd year you imagine a new brilliant idea and try to organize another "environmentalist" club with your own aesthetics and your own business models. How is it going to save anyone if the meaning for your "business" is just going to be a redistribution of money from one pockets to others all over again. Everybody should be involved in protecting the environment, aren't they? No, that's not what you are hearing right now exactly - when I say "everyone", I do not mean that all corporations and conglomerates with money and resources this guy was listing above. I mean that every person is responsible, it should be an altogether separate civic duty to protect the environment you are residing in.

And that is obviously a government thing, a thing for the masses, and these people hate government and bureaucracy. Well, I'm going to tell you what is worse to the environment than government regulation - you. You and your own personal bureaucracy, which is hundred times more hopeless, because of your own ignorance, your elitism, your cynically wishful thinking. It literally means nothing if you call that "punk" or "revolution" or whatever similar. And if your government environmental policies are failing, it doesn't mean you need to make politics out of them, cannibalise them, or privatize them, or split it in many small private feuds living off their legacy. You need to fix them, simple as that.
>> No. 112056 ID: acc7e7
>gazprom shill gets triggered by solar panels
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post